That horse left the barn a long time ago, in the wake of the 2008 crisis.

The banks have been made whole and hardly hold any more Greece debt.

The problem is that in this first bailout the debt has been rolled over from banks to the states, and now the governments of these countries that are holding the debt face an angry electorate that won't accept a haircut. The Finish PM for instance never gets tiered to point out that their share equals 10% of their GDP.

To move past this would require some innovation along the line of the "bad banks" that sprung up after 2008 to hold all the trash collateral, aka a "bad sovereign fund" that will keep the debt on the books yet, guarantees a long enough debt moratorium for Greece to recover.

Much easier to handle a default in this case. Greece would have to print a new currency to refinance its banks, once they are cut loose by the ECB (slated to happen on the 20th when Greece will in all likelihood officially be deemed in default).

In defense of Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, he also states that there should be specific programs to help the poor to access water, his point is that water should have a realistic price.

In Eastern Germany water was essentially free. On the other hand refrigerators were scarce and prone to failure. So it wasn't uncommon for a worker to leave a bottle of beer in the sink and have water flow over it all day, so that it would be nice and cold when he returned from work.

Syria is a failed state and Kurds defending their territory against Daesh/IS is highly desirable. Turkey and Iran have strong armies, the Kurds won't be foolish enough to engage in conventional warfare with them, and heavy weapons are only good for the latter.

Sorry to be so blunt, but this sounds just like convenient US ethnocentrism. At this point this is no longer about the US, but rather long standing conflicts that have been arrested as long as Saddam ruled with an iron fist. Now the power vacuum, super-charged by the Arab spring uprising in Syria, turned into a free wheeling civil war of many actors.

At this point the crumbling American empire doesn't factor prominently.

It's also well documented how the Daesh/IS leadership was forged from former Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda cadres in the US run Abu Graihb prison compound. This is indeed a threat entirely created by massive blow-back from Bush's ineptly conducted, criminal war.

Correction with regards to the jet type: As can be taken from the wikipedia entry you linked to, the German word "Staustrahltriebwerk" translates to pulsejet, and while that shares some similarities with a RAM jet, the S in the SCRAM acronym specifically stand for "supersconic", and the V1 was never designed for that speed.

It was the V2 that you couldn't hear coming because it was the first supersonic weapon. The V1 had a primitive scram jet engine that made it faster than most plans at the time, but it did not break through the sound barrier. The former was simply a terror weapon, how much more terrorizing can it get than being pulverized by something you can't even hear coming?

The V1 was designed to be a mass produced weapon system and kept as simple as possible to that end, but Germany's industrial capacities were already depleted when the system was ready for deployment. The original idea was to be able to launch a swarm of V1s so that they could overcome the air defenses and to get the control system sufficiently accurate that strategic areas could be hit with sufficient precision.

Near the end of the war Hitler wasn't interested in implementing this, but used the V1s in a scattershot fashion as yet another revenge weapon.

This also allowed the Allies to learn from these attacks, and war documents that were unclassified in the nineties showed that they pulled together a weapon system based on radar, a simple analog computer and the most advanced anti-aircraft artillery at the time to automatically track and shoot down the V1.

(My grandfather was an aviation engineer in the V1 Penemünde division as a technical lead, and by the end of the war 2nd in command).

It is very fashionable nowadays to throw the word "terrorism" around. But the term actually has a well defined meaning:

"The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

It does indeed not matter that the pilot was from the Rhineland, what matters is that there is absolutely no indication whatsoever of a political objective. As far as we know this was a mass-murder suicide by a mentally sick individual. No last letters, no statements indicate that anything politcal motivated his crime.

"Don’t you think Breivik was a right-wing Christian ideologue as well ?"

Maybe, I didn't delve into his motives, all I know is that he's was a right wing terrorist who didn't like brown people (and that's pretty much how German media reported on it, which I used as my primary news source closer to the crime).

If there was some religion narrative in addition to that, then it is as related to the Christian faith as ISIS/Daesh is to Islam.

As an agnostic I am not particularly versed or interested in religion, but I know enough not to mistake a hater's self-labeling for the real thing.

If this guy would have had any discernible ideological leanings he would have been called a terrorist in the German media.

BYW the German media I follow never considered the idiotic "was he a muslim" question.

A lot of people died a senseless death, please let's not cheapen this with vacuous comments from the right or left to make a quick political point (for a pointless example from the right I refer you to Art Fine's comment above).

"I do not believe any politician on either side is capable of bridging the gaps."

The only way this gap can be bridged is with tons of money. The international community has a massive interest in ending this seemingly eternal conflict. A fund with unlimited monetary firepower (something along the IWF special drawing rights) should be set up to develop the Palestinian economy, assuming they are willing to sign on to an agreement that Israel can live with. Also an international troop contingent needs to be set-up to provide them with cost-neutral defense capabilities and border security, in exchange for their agreement to forgo their own army.

BP should have gone out of business in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. Yet the US government essentially colluded with them to shield them from the full financial impact. As long as governments can be co-opted like this oil will remain a killer business (literally).

Missing the point. This is not about how to "formally declare war" as a guerrilla force. The question if DAESH is a proper nation fighting a proper war has absolutely no bearing on the culpability with regards to how they treat prisoners.

This is not a bar brawl. Commitment does not equate depravity. The US was fully committed to victory in WW2 as well as to respecting the Geneva convention.

The cheap machismo that seems to motivate your stance is echoed by the more stupid utterances from DC. Nicely illustrates how far the US has already sunken. You could do DAESH no better favour than to embrace them in their cult of death, so as to being pulled down to their level.

Little good ever comes from the moral equivalence game, and I was surprised that Prof. Cole went there. In terms of utter moral failure that of my nation will hopefully never be topped (I am German), yet every nation with a free civil society should have the capability for moral introspection, and fortunately the US despite all its flaws never squashed these kinds of discussions.

That alone illustrates how misguided it is to draw any equivalence to ISIS/DAESH who effortlessly combine modern totalitarianism with the sensibilities of medieval inquisition.

The CSU slogans you are referring to have been widely ridiculed in Germany. Merkel really didn't have to add anything when a hyper-nationalist politician firmly plants his foot into his mouth like that.

What is driving the ugly resurgence of nationalistic and anti-foreign sentiments is the increased influx of refugees. I don't see these flames fanned by any mainstream parties, only the new and questionable AfD is acting ambivalent.

"By 2016, solar and wind will be grid parity everywhere in the US with coal and natural gas for heating and cooling buildings."

While the progress is tremendous and most welcome you are leaving out a very important aspect. The quality of power that is referred to as "dispatachbility" in the industry. I.e. the ability to balance demand when it is needed. Neither wind, solar or coal has this but NG powered turbines do. They can very quickly ramp up and down production, and are currently key in keeping the grid stable.

"While a decade or so ago the colors and styles of veils were prescribed by “jama’ats,” women now use veils to express their moral agency and personal taste and aspirations within a context of religious submission. "

Human nature is what it is. The best way to overcome tribalism is mixing of the tribes.

This is the positive aspect of EU integration. No borders and freedom to move and work anywhere within the EU countries. Hence Germany is attracting a lot of talent from Southern Europe.

This can, of course, also be cast as a negative brain drain, but as multilingualism becomes the norm the South may very well attract more quality businesses, especially of the High Tech variety where quality of life can be an asset to lure talent. Due to the Ukraine crisis Spain is already experiencing more growth at this time.

Since Germany's economy is open to all EU citizens I really don't see any problem with its current strength. And as to the submarines for Israel, I don't recall torpedoes fired into Gaza - very hard to use them as suppression tools in urban warfare. There's two main reason why they don't have German tanks: (a) because the have American ones (b) because tanks can be used against Palestinians. Of course if (a) wasn't the case Germany would be hard pressed to supply these weapons as well.

For obvious reasons it is a cornerstone of German politics that Israel has the right to exist.

"An authority that is disinterested and has the credibility and political will to do the job well."

The lack of such an authority is exactly the problem. When a minority without means to support itself gets trapped on mountaintops there is no external actor that can act as quickly and decisively as the US military.

For good or bad, the US imperial overreach has created global logistic capabilities that are unmatched by any other nation on earth.

".... secret selfies of Angela’s knickers…" would probably have been the most tangible outcome of this wasteful exercise.

Overall the US presence in Germany has a rather minor economic impact, after all this the largest economy and industrial heartland of the EU. The benefit I am alluding to is political in nature and includes the fact that this gets many impressible young US soldiers exposed to Germany. While living and working in the states I often encountered men who were favorably inclined to Germany due to having been stationed there earlier in life.

It also firmly anchors Germany militarily and reduces the need for native forces which in turns means that our neighbors no longer have any reason to regard Germany as a military threat - this notion fortunately has been well shed and relegated to the last century. The latter is a key aspect that allows for European unification. Outsourcing military security to NATO and the US has been a key enabler for this.

Don't think you have a mandate to speak for the majority of the world.

Pretty sure, for instance, that many Polish people would like to see some US troops stationed there.

As a German I also think it is perfectly desirable to have some US presence in my country. But I can wholeheartedly agree to the last statement. It is most desirable to have "a relationship based on mutual respect and cooperation."

“We have done multiple studies of our operations in Afghanistan,” Thomas wrote in an email. “We have an obligation to ensure those lessons, both good and bad, are correctly learned for the future, and we take that charge very seriously".

I wouldn't be surprised if future historians will regard the privatized penitentiary system as a similar abject institutionalized injustice comparable to the institution of slavery. Especially since it largely affects the same minority and often inmates are required to perform prison work.

Chemical weapons in modern warfare are terror weapons. They "worked" in that regard when Saddam Hussein was using them. They are less designed to kill combatants but civilians that are believed to be associated with them i.e. Sunnis in this case.

Truly horrific to what lows Assad is willing to go, especially contemplating that he once practiced medicine.

recently I came across <a href=http://tinyurl.com/3jqzjfn this article in the Independent. It talks about how the historic structures of Mecca and Median are destroyed to make space for a 'Vegas' like cityscape.

If true this seems to be an atrocious destruction of Islam's cultural heritage. What astounded me is that the article claims that Wahhabism actually encourages this kind of vandalism. If true this would make the Saudi Royals abysmally lousy guardians of Islam's most sacred sites.

I would hope that the integration of the European Union would have reached a level by 2050 that breaking out individual countries such as my own (Germany) doesn't really make sense.

Already I think the euro zone should be considered as one fully consolidated economy. After all within this zone we have essentially no borders, full economic mobility and freedom as well as the same currency.

No offense meant, but it feels to me that US observers often seem to be a ignorant of this development and the level of economic integration that has already been achieved.

With all due respect I find this is too cavalier an attitude. While I all for not fighting wars it nevertheless helps to mitigate some of the atrocities if certain humanitarian rules are followed. This was even true for WWII when Germany and the allies restrained from using chemical warfare and observed the Geneva convention for prisoners of war.

War has been a terrible constant throughout human history. There is little expectation that this is going to change. Any effort to dull its teeth through implementation of rules of conduct, field manuals, disarmament agreements and international treaties etc. are worthwhile exercises that deserve the fullest political support.

I understand that this is a blog and don't expect the rigorousness of an academic paper. Nevertheless for a historian of your standing this statement is just too glib and simplistic:

The only way not to commit atrocities and war crimes is not to fight wars.

Wars will be fought. If you accept that premise then we should be motivated to mitigate the damage as much as possible.